sick hunters

[dogwood]

Dogwood - if the deer were somewhere where there was a lot of snow, then it would be better off than here (again, in the scenario where there are natural predators) but I honestly don't think it would have lasted that long here if there was something other than humans to hunt it; it would stick out like a sore thumb! On an animal with no thumbs. If it did survive, it would be dumb luck! IMO of course.

Pete, I don't dispute that this deer *might* be less able to survive in a natural (predator rich) environment. But part of the point of recessive traits in the gene pool is to keep them around in case they prove to be valuable later.

In other words if this same species of deer were to migrate northerly (assuming you weren't an island, of course) then the recessive white deers would suddenly be more successful than their brown peers and slowly the white would dominate. Recessive traits are natures way of saying "just in case we need it later..."

You don't want to remove that potential from the pool by artificial (hunting) means.

That's why I feel hunting for specific genetic traits isn't ethical. Hunt the ordinary and let the extraordinary survive to enrich the pool.

All of that said, I concede that you could make a case here that after a few breeding seasons it would be wise to harvest the white deer because -- without natural predators -- having it flourish would artificially encourage the trait as successful.

That's the conundrum we get into once we've knocked things too far out of balance.

Wait!!!!

Here's the better solution. Let the white deer live and reintroduce WOLVES to the UK and let the wolves sort it out as they should! Wouldn't you love to see some wolves in the countryside...

Then we'd all be happy

 

[Draven]

Hmm.. well put Dogwood, I see your point and it's a good 'un Totally agree about the wolves by the by - it would be lovely to hear the howling

Pete

 

[BigShot]

Firstly - I agree about the wolves to a point.

Secondly - The issue is, reintroducing is effectively demoting us humans from "apex predator" to "predatory prey" which wouldn't be quite so cool for the people living in the areas repopulated by the wolves.
I'd agree with it a little bit more if people were allowed to carry guns - they'd at least have a means of defence against predators then. I can't see that happening any time soon though.


So yes, I like the idea of returning the British Isles to a more naturally balanced ecosystem, but there are potential drawbacks. For example, you'd need to keep a closer watch over your kids when out playing if wolves were around - as things stand I think the nippers are restricted enough already to keep them away from various bogeymen (paedos, kidnappers and general nasty sorts that are more dangerous in our minds than in the real world)


I know people live alongside wolves in other parts of the world, and I'm not suggesting that packs of wolves regularly invade towns to make off with the young kids, but it's something to consider.

 

[Draven]

Firstly - I agree about the wolves to a point.

Secondly - The issue is, reintroducing is effectively demoting us humans from "apex predator" to "predatory prey" which wouldn't be quite so cool for the people living in the areas repopulated by the wolves.
I'd agree with it a little bit more if people were allowed to carry guns - they'd at least have a means of defence against predators then. I can't see that happening any time soon though.


So yes, I like the idea of returning the British Isles to a more naturally balanced ecosystem, but there are potential drawbacks. For example, you'd need to keep a closer watch over your kids when out playing if wolves were around - as things stand I think the nippers are restricted enough already to keep them away from various bogeymen (paedos, kidnappers and general nasty sorts that are more dangerous in our minds than in the real world)


I know people live alongside wolves in other parts of the world, and I'm not suggesting that packs of wolves regularly invade towns to make off with the young kids, but it's something to consider.

True, it'd work better if guns weren't so detested over here. And if you wouldn't get stoned for animal cruelty if you shot a wolf dragging your child off

Pete

 

[firecrest]

Dogwood - if the deer were somewhere where there was a lot of snow, then it would be better off than here (again, in the scenario where there are natural predators) but I honestly don't think it would have lasted that long here if there was something other than humans to hunt it; it would stick out like a sore thumb! On an animal with no thumbs. If it did survive, it would be dumb luck! IMO of course.

Firecrest - its existance isn't against natural selection, but insisting it must be protected is against natural selection. Natural selection allows less able animals to get killed by whatever means, or at the least not reproduce, while ensuring that the strong and able flourish and breed. Hunting the biggest, strongest buck you can find is against natural selection, as is insisting that something unsuited to the environment is protected just because it's special. At the very least, it ensures that natural selection doesn't have the chance to dictate whether it's well suited or not. I don't see how snow for three months out of 12 (which I doubt we'll get anyway) is enough to warrant a white coat - that would just mean that it would be a bright white deer in the brown and green for 9 months. I think majority rules...

Pete

Yes its not going to do it much use after winter, but my point is it may have survived because of the winter, and that natural selection is within the present moment, it has no way of knowing the future. Its therefor not right to call it abnormal, simply a specimen that may have had slightly increased survival odds over the winter due to lower visibility than its brown peers. In an average uk winter the opposite may have been the case. Come summer its survival odds will decrease but if our winters went nuclear Id expect to see animals of many species becoming paler.

 

[squirrelhunter23]

I hear that albino deer are not that rare, but i am in the states. so i don't think anyone who has ever hunted has any respect for someone who is auctioning a deer with a huge rack ,albino or other wise.

 

[dogwood]

True, it'd work better if guns weren't so detested over here. And if you wouldn't get stoned for animal cruelty if you shot a wolf dragging your child off

Pete

Pete,

I *know* you know this and you're being rhetorical above, so I'm not correcting you.

But just in case some readers stumble upon this and don't know it: in places where there are large wolf populations wolves DO NOT predate on humans in any meaningful way. They *will* and do predate on small pets however. With glee and smacking lips...

Many, many people live surrounded by wolves without a wolf taking a child etc. You can live a perfectly normal life in wolf filled areas -- the same normal precautions you'd take to protect small children from all kinds of risks (staying near them, etc.) protect them from wolves too.

Of course, from time to time wolves might kill a person -- but it's incredibly rate. Like really, really rare. Super rare.

In fact, domestic dogs kill many more people than wolves even in wolf-filled areas.

You could have 10,000 wolves in the UK and you and your children would still be at much greater risk from the domestic dog down the street....

Because we tend to live in a tamed environment, we sometimes over-estimate the danger of other predators.

The UK would be sweet with wolves afield again. Ah, there is majesty in that....

And as a former old English mastiff owner (love 'em!), anyone who frets too much about wolves just get a mastiff -- since the middle ages they have been the very English solution to wolf problems

 

[Draven]

Firecrest - I'm not so sure... it would take a long time for something like that to get passed round the gene pool, would it not?

Dogwood - you're right, I was being (or attempting to be ) facetious That is fair to clarify though, don't want people to be misinformed that wolves frequently run around kidnapping the young'ns! I'd still feel more comfortable if I could own a rifle, same goes for bears and I'm sure bear attacks would be similarly scarce. Maybe it's just the American in me?

Pete

 

[dogwood]

I'd still feel more comfortable if I could own a rifle, same goes for bears and I'm sure bear attacks would be similarly scarce. Maybe it's just the American in me?

You cracked my up Pete.

Yes, I'm certain the desire to have a rifle about is the American in you -- come out my way and I'll take you shooting to your heart's content, mate.

However, let's NOT turn this into another gun thread. I've barely recovered from the last one

 

[BigShot]

Dead right about low risk. There is still a risk though.

I've seen a few documentaries and read a few things that suggest people going into areas with apex predators carry the means to protect themselves should the need arise. Very, very rare for sure, but not unheard of.

While it's true that you'd keep an eye on small kids anyway, I think my concern would be about when those kids reach the age where the garden fence stops being a play pen and becomes a frontier to explore beyond. That's the time when you can't keep such a close watch and when, potentailly, there's a risk of one being taken.
Again I know it's not the main preferred prey, but sometimes wild predators do attack humans.
Not that I'd be sending kids in single-digit ages out to play with a pistol on their hip, of course. Haha.


I saw a series a while back about a guy living as a wolf for a while. He raised them from pups and was the "pack leader" for a while. At one point he went away to an area that was having problems with wolves - can't remember the details, they may or may not have hurt people, but were coming into, or close to a farm (I think).
They started playing the sounds of a pack howling from the farm which marked it as territory so the real wolves stayed away.

Fascinating idea.


Did the fella with that estate up in Scotland get his re-wilding up and running? I know it was a controversial one for a number of reasons (access issues, paid for nominal "wild camping" and so on) but I wonder if he got it going.
Pretty sure I remember reading he was looking to include predators in it. Wolf? Bear? Can't remember the exact details now though.

 

[harryhaller]

I heard on a programme that it is a total myth that wolves attack humans - that they have natural fear for humans. (we're talking about Europe remember).

In anycase Spain is re-introducing wolves into the pyrenees just as bears already have been - and I believe bears are far more dangerous and have no natural fear of humans.

The main danger from wolves are to livestock and that has been accounted for - there is a system of compensation for all livestock taken by predators.

The problem is that nobody (ie the BBC) has been properly informing us about these matters because there is an EU policy to re-introduce predators into the wild - and no one seriously believes that they present a danger to human life under normal circumstances.

The myth about wolves being a danger to people seems to have been started by farmers to encourage their total elimination. Nowadays, there is no need since farmers get compensation.

In anycase, you'll all find this pdf very interesting!

 

[harryhaller]

Wolves and Humans - a UK "charity dedicated to the conservation of Europe’s large carnivores - wolves, bears and lynx".

 

[BigShot]

Thanks for the links, Harry.
I'll have a read of them tomorrow.

 

[dogwood]

I heard on a programme that it is a total myth that wolves attack humans - that they have natural fear for humans. (we're talking about Europe remember).

Harry, you're quite right. Here in North America I've seen statistics that fewer than a 10 documented wolf attacks have happened in the last 100 years in all of North America.

In anycase Spain is re-introducing wolves into the pyrenees just as bears already have been - and I believe bears are far more dangerous and have no natural fear of humans.

I lived in Alaska for a while and I assure you that most bears have a natural fear of humans. That said, here in Northern California where you've got thousands of rowdy Yosemite bears that look at all humans as bearing treats, you see very few attacks per se. These bears are predating on granola bars and chips.

Bear danger is almost always wildly overstated.

I'm in bear country all the time and I'm always happy to see them -- unless they're after my food

The number of bear attacks and fatalities in North America is vanishingly small -- usually fewer than 10 a decade. Statistically, recreational boating and canoeing are more dangerous and in the season more people die on calm water in their boats in a month than are attacked by bears in a decade. In fact, more people die golfing than die of bear attacks.

I'm familiar with the Spanish efforts and I applaud them!

The main danger from wolves are to livestock and that has been accounted for - there is a system of compensation for all livestock taken by predators.

The problem is that nobody (ie the BBC) has been properly informing us about these matters because there is an EU policy to re-introduce predators into the wild - and no one seriously believes that they present a danger to human life under normal circumstances.

The myth about wolves being a danger to people seems to have been started by farmers to encourage their total elimination. Nowadays, there is no need since farmers get compensation.

In anycase, you'll all find this pdf very interesting!

All very true and GREAT points. Thanks for the link.

 

[mr dazzler]

i gotit... dont post anti-hunt stuff on a forum full of hunters

Well theres some sense in that, although your jumping to conclusions really, because this isnt a "hunterts forum" or "trophy shooting forum". As has been pointed out, there are hunters on the forum, and some non hunters, some have strong views others are more pragmatic or whatever. Relax rob, take it easy m8. As I said in my 2nd post I am not a hunter (not now anyway) although I was when I was your age. I grew out of it as other priorities took over, it was my own choice I wasnt leaned on by ALF (Oh and my daddy didnt force me to start going out shooting with him when I was about 12, I wanted to). For the record, I personally think taxidermy is, well, a bit weird, making a trophy reminder of a particular animal, bird, fish etc. But other people enjoy it, thats their preference, who are you or I to impose our moral outlook?

 

[Tye Possum]

I'm against trophy hunting. It weakens the gene pool and just makes me uncomfortable. I'm all for hunting though as long as it doesn't get too out of control and end up... Well with nothing left to hunt. I don't know if this deer should be killed, it's not albino but a rare white deer of sorts (forgotten the proper name) and apparently there has been less than a dozen seen over the last 60 years. I mean if wolves were around and they got it then that's fine because they're just doing what comes natural but humans know more about which animals are rare and decide which ones to hunt based on which ones would look better on our walls but wolves just take whichever ones closest and easiest to kill. I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be though because without natural predators to kill the deer it means we're responsible for the uhh thinning of the herd and so because we know it's rare we're not sure what to do with it. I don't think we're cut out for this top predator spot, we know too much about the animals we hunt and so when a rare one pops up we just don't know what the heck to do. Oh and speaking of wolves killing people... Check this out if you've never heard of em: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolves_of_Perigord Note that a guy with a billhook saved some folks, thought that would interest you billhook lovers. Also take a look at the see also section of links for other man eating wolf things. Of course all that stuff happened a long time ago, when we had limited hunting abilities and weapons and now we don't have nearly enough wolves in the world to worry about them and even if their numbers increased, we have repeating guns nowadays and are more than capable of dealing with them.

Just had a thought, maybe we should send a few guys into the area where that deer is and tell them to shoot the first deer they see and then use everything they can from the deer and if the white one gets killed, problem solved and if it doesn't then we send some more in later and see what happens, that way it's more natural, in a weird human kind of way...

 

[John Fenna]

Personally I find trophy hunting repellant.
I have no argument against hunting for food or for other animal products and I have been known to take the odd beastie myself for eating.
I always try to make the kill as clean as possible and treat the animal with the respect that every living thing deserves.
I wtry not to kill slugs because I do not eat them.
I apologise to trees before I cut them.
I give thanks to a rabbit beore I eat it.
But killing something just because it looks nice - no, not for me.
If I was to kill a white deer I would probably (after eating the meat and storing its bones sinew and rack for tool making) dress the hide and make a stunningly beautiful rug out of it and enjoy using and looking at the hide.
Prefering to kill a rich hunter? - no...I would not think the hide would look as good!

 

[locum76]

here's my thoughts on reintroducing wolves from a previous thread titled:

Radio 4 - Re-introduction of wolves and beavers

why reintroduce animals back into our ecosystem after we are already guilty of causing there extinction? the original reasons for hunting wolves to extinction still exist and won't go away.

we can't farm animals and have high end predators in the same space.

putting a fence around them is basically zoo keeping and possibly a bit of vanity on the part of the land owner (ooh look at my fancy beasts.)

within the next forty years we will have to grow more of our own food in Britain to try and keep up with the demand as food security becomes a big issue due to the effect of peak oil. there will be no space for wolves, we will have to actively farm that land.

apart from some small grants for tree planting, a lot of current agricultural subsidization is aimed at maintaining farmland until it is needed again. and it will be sooner than you think.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Ag...nts/Background
__________________

Beavers could be slightly better (more likely/ useful), they create lagoons and pools in riparian woodland. the Scottish exec are currently talking about creating wetlands to help clear our big rivers of agricultural pollutants.

maybe the beavers could be a natural creator of such wetlands?

also i resent somebody being given the right to fence off a whole estate just to keep pets (wolves). this is my land and its a free land.
__________________

our nation is not rich enough anymore to indulge in such extravagant pets.

 

[Tengu]

Ah, John, human skin makes a better book binding...

When I was 14 I was ostracised by my friends for not joining in with their animal rights campaigns...I did not care.

If I was after a white deer Id want a real proper albino...(be doing it a favour too)

 

[tenderfoot]

fairs fair but m8...
i dont know anyone that is 14 and lives on there own.
maybe when you were a kid you lived in the middle of a forest on your own, but please dont assume everyone is ancient.
and also this isnt an albino, its a really rare creature that only comes up once in a blue moon. also this annoys me because paying 6000 to show off a deer is ridiculouse.
and when i said i would rather the hunter wd die i didnt meen i would go and shoot him myself.
i have nothing against hunters. but i strongly disagree with people that kill to show off.
i think you should take as much resources as possiable from your deer.
please think before you make such dumb assumptions

Rob dont take this as an attack or as patronising from an adult but friendly advice from a fellow forum user.... which is presumably why you are here?
You will get a robust response from forum users because of the tone of your posts which perhaps reflects more the way your peers interact than the way people do on this forum.
I have two lads and your posts "sound " like the way they talk. look at your posting that i have quoted and try to see it as others (who dont yet know you well) see it. You come across as defensive and a bit angry.Calling someone ancient is intended to be a bit of an insult? as is telling people that you think their assumptions are "dumb" rather than "misguided "say. its all down to language and how you come across.
I kinda understand your post about "a forum full of hunters" and read it as posted in a tongue in cheek , self depracating kind of way. but yes this is a bushcraft forum so youd kind of expect to find a few hunters here! -not me by the way. Please dont be put off , I was quite astonished by a robust response by firecrest to one of my first postings( due to me not making myself clear) I now know that firecrest can be relied on to take a thoughtful approach to many topics whilst holding quite stong views. As i said its all down to how you come across and you cant assume on a forum like this that there is a great degree of commonality other than an interest in bushcraft Thats why the mods are there to keep people in check.Its good to be controversial, it stimulates debate,but we dont , or shouldnt do flame wars or slanging matches
oh dear i just read this post and im startinfg to sound like someones dad or a moderator
ill shut up then....